Sojourner553

Those who promoted Social Darwinism never cared about the species -- it was ALWAYS about themselves! That is because Social Darwinism has never been anything but a conservative right wing ideology trying to disguise itself under the mask of science.

Even Darwin tried to tell critics that survival of the "fittest" (as used to imply strength) was not an accurate representation of his theory.

Sojourner

Sojourner553

By the way, I never added my 2 cents why racism is wrong.

Toto had it right when he stated that science can find no evidence of a gene that serves as a marker for race. The characteristics seen at the genetic level for Africans can be shared by some Europeans and Asians.

If one chooses "color of skin" as a marker for race, then it is true that an IQ test for a group of blacks, whites, and say Asians will each have their own distribution curve and mean.

I suspect Asians "might" measure a slightly higher average than whites, and whites possibly a slightly higher average than blacks. Men would probably have a slightly higher average than woman. (Some or all of this might be influenced by the culture the test was written in as well.)

That said, I think it very likely that the smartest INDIVIDUAL on earth is a black female!

You see, group averages say nothing about the individual. Because all the studies on genetics show there is so much variation in all groups -- that there will be a large number of smart women and blacks, no matter what the averages show based on large numbers.

That is why racism is ridiculous. I think one could find the same trends based on color of hair.
(With blondes doing the worst??? I need to watch that last remark -- my daughter is a natural blonde. Smile)

My mother told me as a child that blacks faced racism because of the sin of Ham in the Bible. It was when I began reading the Bible criticially I learned (with great shock) this was all a pack of lies. The cruelty blacks have faced from religious racism is a key reason why I believe the Bible can be dangerous.

For a discussion on the biblical impact on slavery see:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/SLAVE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/SLAVE.TXT</a>

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

Sojourner

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

echidna

You suspect ? On what basis do you suspect ? Are you making your judgements based on genetics or culture ? How do you distinguish the two ?

Personally I don’t agree with Toto’s Politically Correct denial of race. Reality is that there are significant physical differences between people from difference heritages. Often these are traceable back to minor genetic differences and combination, genes for skin colour, hair and bone structure, etc etc etc.

Thereby racial genetic differences are quite able to be statistically grouped and analysed. Only Political Correctness (for better or worse) and the appropriate stigma associated with eugenics prevents these studies from proceeding.

Sojourner553

I stated clearly on what basis -- on the color of the skin. And I was relying on statistics I have read of previous IQ tests that were grouped according to the color of one's skin. Some have questioned whether these scores were influenced by culture.

But that wasn't my main point at all...




So glad you don't "personally" agree. Why not look at the human genome and show scientists (geneticists) how do do their job since it is THEY who can find no marker for race.

Where are your sources/link to prove the opposite???

And all these statistics show that there is more INDIVIDUAL VARIATION than variation in GROUP MEANS. That was the main point of my post!!!

Please show me you understand basic statistics before I bother replying to you again.

Sojourner

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

echidna

This is quite bizarre.

First you claim that Asians might perform better in IQ tests, then you say that race doesn’t exist.

I think we are agreed that race is a social construct, and in fact that there is no single definition. But are you denying that the skin colour marker which you arbitrarily chose is not traceable back to a gene or combination ?

The concept of race exists, and is based in part on objective fact.

However what characteristics you ascribe to race, you must scientifically prove, not just suspect.

I assert there are genetic differences which create black or white skin. I do not assert that then these genes are also linked with neurological characteristics at all.

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

echidna

Of course race is an arbitrary construct as you say, and yes there is no single scientific definition of race. Nonetheless there are obvious physical differences between groups from different heritages. Do you need evidence to demonstrate the minor genetic groupings necessary to create these grouped physical differences ?

It is these obvious physical differences which in reality we use every day to physically differentiate those with different heritages, and in turn create the social construct of race.

There is a multitude of classifications of human race, some might have scientific merit, most probably not.

So even in the now-unpopular earliest classification, are you denying that there would be a statistically significant difference between a Negroid and Caucasoid population when it comes to selected genes responsible for physical appearance ?

My mother is quite short, has yellowish skin, a flat nose, straight black hair. You night take a pot shot that’ she’s Asian. And if you were right, it wouldn’t be a complete fluke.

Now, just because the scientific community has wisely decided not to pursue the path of eugenics, doesn’t mean that the social concept of race is not based in some part on fact.

If you care to re-read, my objections are not with your legitimate point that genetic variations are wider within a racial group than between racial groups, my objections are that you claim that there are no scientific markers. Clearly depending on one's race definition, genetic markers can be statistically identified.

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

dk

echidna

Not to change the subject, but with a brain scan they found the same centers activated in the brain when a man looked at the face of a pretty woman, as a drug addict looking at pictures of drugs.

They didn't mention much about women's reactions, so it peaked my interest. In the last Presidential election the "Gore Kiss" swung 20% of the women's vote. Is this darwin's theory at work?

Personally I think racism and social Darwinism is wrong, even pornographic, to the extent they devalue human life on the sole basis of appearances. I think the evolution of broadcast media magnifies the danger because people are bombarded with stereotypes. For example celebrities wield undue influence over public opinion for no credible reason except they look familiar, pretty and project well on camera. Absent strong positives or negatives between the candidates I vote for the ugliest. What’s that make me?

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

echidna

Heh, I generally form my musical taste on the same basis, ie. surely someone that ugly has something more going for them …

What you are describing though seems more a feature of all human psychology, the tendency to generalise (a form of pattern creation I suppose) positive characteristics and extrapolate other positive characteristics, creating a general attraction towards that person’s ideas. Our goldfish attention spans would much prefer to find easy shortcuts to actually analysing issues, sad but true.

But I don’t see population appeal necessarily as a form of Darwinism, since Darwinism is loosely associated with the concept of reproduction & the reproduction of Al Gore is a subject I’d really rather avoid.

Racism is a very difficult word because it is so emotionally loaded. The reality is that physical differences exist. But how these physical differences can be extrapolated into our behaviour is almost impossible to say objectively. It’s almost carte blanche for the pseudoscientists. The concept of race is a reality, but where it is wrong, is in falsely ascribing unjustified characteristics to the known physical ones, and in incorrectly extending causal generalisations beyond what one can objectively demonstrate.

In a reproduction context though, Social Darwinism is far more complex than just appearances. Although appearances count, fortunately the human mating game has far more variables than just appearances. The human ugly gene is alive and well !!!

Sojourner553

Thank you for demonstrating your understanding of that last point.

Why do you assume I have a problem with gathering statistics on anything/everything?

I believe in gathering statistics and correlating this with the human genome. This is a great tool for grouping human character (ex: shyness, even a tendency towards sociopathy) plus
natural tendency towards certain diseases.

But so far, there is no clear marker whereby ANY scientist can tell a person's race SOLELY BY LOOKING AT THEIR HUMAN GENOME. Check it out!. Every characteristic -- black kinky hair, etc is shared among the races. Now it is true these characteristics are not shared equally (in the same mix) among each groups, but are instead represented more heavily in some races than others.

Even Skin color is not a 100% marker for "race". Over ten years ago there was an article in PSYCHOLOGY TODAY on two pairs of identical twins. Identical that is with one exception -- one had white skin and the other had black skin. {I wish I had the picture shown in the article}

This is because skin color is not carried in the genes within the nucleus of the cell, but outside the nucleus. The mother had a mixture of white and black blood and lived in a South American country (either Argentina or Brazil as I recall.)

Are you aware that the cloned sheep Dolly was an identical copy of its mother. Identical with one exception -- the skin pigment (black and white markings) was completely different. I read a DISCOVER article once where they explained this. It seems skin color is randomly determined at the time of birth, not conception because the genes for skin color are not in the gene's nucleus. (This also explains why two identical human twins -- except for their skin color.)

So -- what genetic race were the two identical twins -- one with white skin [and NOT an albino] and the other with black skin?

Thank you for demonstrating your understanding of the variation around the mean. The problem is most people have a "simplistic" understanding of statistics. That means too often people assume if the "average" for their group is relatively higher or lower than another group, then "every member" in that group also shares the same characteristics. For example, a statistical sample might show that whites on average as a group are taller than blacks as a group. That doesn't mean there are no tall blacks.

Lump this in with the fact, there are no physical characteristics (not even skin color is 100% a marker) that can be perfectly correlated with race. Discover has run some great articles on this over the years.


Sojourner

echidna

Well it seems one of us doesn’t quite grasp statistics. There are general markers. To dismiss race as non-existent because it’s not 100% precise is utterly ridiculous. I’m a half-breed between 2 major groups so of course my genes will be a little mixed. Further, DNA reproduction is not an exact process and exceptions occur.

There are statistical markers. You found an exception. Whoopee.

Where on earth do you get this Politically Correct thinking ?

Depends which markers you arbitrarily choose. On your single skin marker, indeterminate. But I chose hair characteristics, facial form, bone structure, skin colour & maybe you’d add a few more to obtain a probability towards one group or another. Remember, that’s probability, y’know statistics stuff.